Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 711 | control, N = 351 | treatment, N = 361 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 71 | 50.78 ± 12.63 (25 - 74) | 50.48 ± 13.41 (25 - 74) | 51.07 ± 12.01 (31 - 72) | 0.846 |
gender | 71 | 0.736 | |||
f | 50 (70%) | 24 (69%) | 26 (72%) | ||
m | 21 (30%) | 11 (31%) | 10 (28%) | ||
occupation | 71 | 0.965 | |||
day_training | 1 (1.4%) | 1 (2.9%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 7 (9.9%) | 4 (11%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
homemaker | 6 (8.5%) | 3 (8.6%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
other | 2 (2.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (5.6%) | ||
part_time | 13 (18%) | 6 (17%) | 7 (19%) | ||
retired | 15 (21%) | 7 (20%) | 8 (22%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (2.8%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
student | 1 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (2.8%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
unemploy | 22 (31%) | 12 (34%) | 10 (28%) | ||
marital | 71 | 0.928 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
divore | 8 (11%) | 5 (14%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
married | 15 (21%) | 7 (20%) | 8 (22%) | ||
none | 41 (58%) | 20 (57%) | 21 (58%) | ||
seperation | 3 (4.2%) | 2 (5.7%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
widow | 3 (4.2%) | 1 (2.9%) | 2 (5.6%) | ||
edu | 71 | 0.983 | |||
bachelor | 21 (30%) | 9 (26%) | 12 (33%) | ||
diploma | 12 (17%) | 7 (20%) | 5 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (4.2%) | 2 (5.7%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 6 (8.5%) | 3 (8.6%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
primary | 5 (7.0%) | 2 (5.7%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 7 (9.9%) | 3 (8.6%) | 4 (11%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 15 (21%) | 8 (23%) | 7 (19%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 2 (2.8%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
fam_income | 71 | 0.937 | |||
10001_12000 | 4 (5.6%) | 1 (2.9%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
12001_14000 | 4 (5.6%) | 2 (5.7%) | 2 (5.6%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (7.0%) | 2 (5.7%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (2.8%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
18001_20000 | 4 (5.6%) | 3 (8.6%) | 1 (2.8%) | ||
20001_above | 11 (15%) | 6 (17%) | 5 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 9 (13%) | 6 (17%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
4001_6000 | 10 (14%) | 4 (11%) | 6 (17%) | ||
6001_8000 | 7 (9.9%) | 4 (11%) | 3 (8.3%) | ||
8001_10000 | 6 (8.5%) | 2 (5.7%) | 4 (11%) | ||
below_2000 | 9 (13%) | 4 (11%) | 5 (14%) | ||
medication | 71 | 61 (86%) | 31 (89%) | 30 (83%) | 0.735 |
onset_duration | 71 | 15.37 ± 11.52 (0 - 56) | 16.98 ± 12.86 (1 - 56) | 13.80 ± 9.99 (0 - 35) | 0.248 |
onset_age | 71 | 35.41 ± 13.83 (14 - 64) | 33.50 ± 12.73 (14 - 58) | 37.26 ± 14.76 (15 - 64) | 0.254 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 711 | control, N = 351 | treatment, N = 361 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 71 | 3.14 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 3.14 ± 1.29 (1 - 5) | 3.14 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 0.989 |
recovery_stage_b | 71 | 17.94 ± 2.63 (9 - 23) | 17.86 ± 2.70 (9 - 23) | 18.03 ± 2.60 (13 - 23) | 0.787 |
ras_confidence | 71 | 30.34 ± 4.83 (19 - 43) | 29.71 ± 4.23 (19 - 40) | 30.94 ± 5.34 (20 - 43) | 0.287 |
ras_willingness | 71 | 12.11 ± 1.97 (7 - 15) | 11.94 ± 1.89 (9 - 15) | 12.28 ± 2.05 (7 - 15) | 0.477 |
ras_goal | 71 | 17.52 ± 3.01 (12 - 24) | 17.51 ± 3.00 (12 - 24) | 17.53 ± 3.06 (12 - 24) | 0.985 |
ras_reliance | 71 | 13.17 ± 2.83 (8 - 20) | 12.89 ± 2.60 (8 - 18) | 13.44 ± 3.05 (8 - 20) | 0.409 |
ras_domination | 71 | 9.93 ± 2.26 (3 - 15) | 10.43 ± 1.96 (6 - 15) | 9.44 ± 2.45 (3 - 14) | 0.067 |
symptom | 71 | 30.10 ± 9.89 (14 - 56) | 31.00 ± 9.76 (14 - 52) | 29.22 ± 10.07 (15 - 56) | 0.453 |
slof_work | 71 | 22.63 ± 4.89 (10 - 30) | 22.51 ± 4.43 (15 - 30) | 22.75 ± 5.37 (10 - 30) | 0.841 |
slof_relationship | 71 | 25.66 ± 6.04 (11 - 35) | 25.37 ± 6.28 (13 - 35) | 25.94 ± 5.88 (11 - 35) | 0.693 |
satisfaction | 71 | 20.72 ± 6.89 (5 - 32) | 19.26 ± 6.62 (5 - 29) | 22.14 ± 6.94 (5 - 32) | 0.078 |
mhc_emotional | 71 | 11.25 ± 3.85 (3 - 18) | 10.89 ± 3.42 (3 - 17) | 11.61 ± 4.24 (4 - 18) | 0.431 |
mhc_social | 71 | 15.06 ± 5.48 (6 - 30) | 15.37 ± 5.56 (7 - 30) | 14.75 ± 5.47 (6 - 26) | 0.636 |
mhc_psychological | 71 | 22.30 ± 6.12 (6 - 36) | 21.94 ± 5.79 (10 - 36) | 22.64 ± 6.48 (6 - 36) | 0.635 |
resilisnce | 71 | 16.55 ± 4.54 (6 - 27) | 16.26 ± 4.37 (6 - 24) | 16.83 ± 4.75 (7 - 27) | 0.597 |
social_provision | 71 | 13.65 ± 2.97 (5 - 20) | 13.26 ± 2.56 (8 - 20) | 14.03 ± 3.32 (5 - 20) | 0.278 |
els_value_living | 71 | 17.28 ± 2.95 (5 - 25) | 16.66 ± 2.38 (12 - 22) | 17.89 ± 3.34 (5 - 25) | 0.079 |
els_life_fulfill | 71 | 12.83 ± 3.30 (4 - 20) | 11.89 ± 3.05 (5 - 17) | 13.75 ± 3.32 (4 - 20) | 0.016 |
els | 71 | 30.11 ± 5.62 (9 - 45) | 28.54 ± 4.45 (20 - 36) | 31.64 ± 6.25 (9 - 45) | 0.019 |
social_connect | 71 | 27.03 ± 9.52 (8 - 48) | 27.74 ± 8.25 (8 - 45) | 26.33 ± 10.68 (8 - 48) | 0.537 |
shs_agency | 71 | 14.48 ± 4.98 (3 - 24) | 13.89 ± 4.64 (3 - 21) | 15.06 ± 5.29 (3 - 24) | 0.326 |
shs_pathway | 71 | 16.62 ± 3.98 (4 - 24) | 16.23 ± 3.85 (8 - 24) | 17.00 ± 4.11 (4 - 23) | 0.418 |
shs | 71 | 31.10 ± 8.49 (7 - 47) | 30.11 ± 8.13 (13 - 45) | 32.06 ± 8.83 (7 - 47) | 0.339 |
esteem | 71 | 12.66 ± 1.51 (10 - 18) | 12.86 ± 1.57 (10 - 18) | 12.47 ± 1.44 (10 - 16) | 0.287 |
mlq_search | 71 | 14.92 ± 3.36 (3 - 21) | 14.80 ± 3.17 (6 - 21) | 15.03 ± 3.57 (3 - 21) | 0.777 |
mlq_presence | 71 | 13.52 ± 4.15 (3 - 21) | 13.51 ± 3.57 (5 - 20) | 13.53 ± 4.70 (3 - 21) | 0.989 |
mlq | 71 | 28.44 ± 6.69 (6 - 42) | 28.31 ± 5.95 (12 - 40) | 28.56 ± 7.42 (6 - 42) | 0.881 |
empower | 71 | 19.52 ± 4.15 (6 - 28) | 19.11 ± 3.82 (11 - 24) | 19.92 ± 4.46 (6 - 28) | 0.419 |
ismi_resistance | 71 | 14.61 ± 2.68 (5 - 20) | 14.31 ± 2.27 (11 - 19) | 14.89 ± 3.03 (5 - 20) | 0.370 |
ismi_discrimation | 71 | 11.30 ± 3.23 (5 - 19) | 12.26 ± 2.86 (5 - 18) | 10.36 ± 3.33 (5 - 19) | 0.012 |
sss_affective | 71 | 10.00 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 10.57 ± 3.49 (3 - 18) | 9.44 ± 4.13 (3 - 18) | 0.219 |
sss_behavior | 71 | 9.69 ± 3.97 (3 - 18) | 10.49 ± 3.97 (3 - 18) | 8.92 ± 3.86 (3 - 18) | 0.096 |
sss_cognitive | 71 | 8.32 ± 4.01 (3 - 18) | 8.66 ± 4.26 (3 - 18) | 8.00 ± 3.78 (3 - 18) | 0.494 |
sss | 71 | 28.01 ± 10.96 (9 - 54) | 29.71 ± 10.56 (9 - 54) | 26.36 ± 11.23 (9 - 54) | 0.199 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.14 | 0.206 | 2.74, 3.55 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.004 | 0.289 | -0.571, 0.563 | 0.989 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.137 | 0.290 | -0.432, 0.706 | 0.639 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.208 | 0.414 | -0.604, 1.02 | 0.618 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.455 | 17.0, 18.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.171 | 0.639 | -1.08, 1.42 | 0.790 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.333 | 0.608 | -1.53, 0.859 | 0.586 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.861 | 0.868 | -0.840, 2.56 | 0.326 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.855 | 28.0, 31.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.23 | 1.201 | -1.12, 3.58 | 0.309 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.366 | 0.820 | -1.24, 1.97 | 0.658 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.252 | 1.173 | -2.05, 2.55 | 0.831 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.339 | 11.3, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.335 | 0.476 | -0.598, 1.27 | 0.484 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.639 | 0.322 | -1.27, -0.009 | 0.053 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.477 | 0.460 | -0.424, 1.38 | 0.305 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.5 | 0.533 | 16.5, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.013 | 0.748 | -1.45, 1.48 | 0.986 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.921 | 0.554 | -2.01, 0.164 | 0.103 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.53 | 0.792 | -0.017, 3.09 | 0.059 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.465 | 12.0, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.559 | 0.653 | -0.720, 1.84 | 0.394 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.473 | 0.409 | -0.328, 1.27 | 0.253 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.595 | 0.585 | -0.551, 1.74 | 0.314 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.374 | 9.70, 11.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.984 | 0.525 | -2.01, 0.045 | 0.064 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.587 | 0.469 | -1.51, 0.333 | 0.218 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.39 | 0.670 | 0.078, 2.71 | 0.044 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.0 | 1.672 | 27.7, 34.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.78 | 2.348 | -6.38, 2.82 | 0.451 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.101 | 1.185 | -2.22, 2.42 | 0.932 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.746 | 1.697 | -4.07, 2.58 | 0.662 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.5 | 0.834 | 20.9, 24.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.236 | 1.171 | -2.06, 2.53 | 0.841 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.697 | 0.619 | -1.91, 0.517 | 0.267 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.594 | 0.886 | -2.33, 1.14 | 0.507 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.4 | 1.013 | 23.4, 27.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.573 | 1.423 | -2.22, 3.36 | 0.688 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.02 | 0.901 | -2.79, 0.742 | 0.262 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.619 | 1.289 | -1.91, 3.15 | 0.634 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.3 | 1.185 | 16.9, 21.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.88 | 1.664 | -0.379, 6.14 | 0.087 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.732 | 1.188 | -1.60, 3.06 | 0.541 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.19 | 1.699 | -4.52, 2.14 | 0.488 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.9 | 0.645 | 9.62, 12.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.725 | 0.906 | -1.05, 2.50 | 0.426 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.445 | 0.542 | -0.617, 1.51 | 0.416 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.11 | 0.776 | -2.63, 0.413 | 0.161 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.4 | 0.960 | 13.5, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.621 | 1.348 | -3.26, 2.02 | 0.646 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.03 | 0.906 | -0.749, 2.80 | 0.264 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.53 | 1.296 | -4.07, 1.01 | 0.244 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.9 | 1.087 | 19.8, 24.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.696 | 1.526 | -2.29, 3.69 | 0.650 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.594 | 1.026 | -1.42, 2.61 | 0.566 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.61 | 1.468 | -4.49, 1.27 | 0.279 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.734 | 14.8, 17.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.576 | 1.030 | -1.44, 2.60 | 0.577 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.180 | 0.721 | -1.23, 1.59 | 0.804 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.370 | 1.031 | -1.65, 2.39 | 0.721 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.512 | 12.3, 14.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.771 | 0.719 | -0.639, 2.18 | 0.287 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.923 | 0.559 | -2.02, 0.172 | 0.105 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.899 | 0.799 | -0.666, 2.46 | 0.266 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.042 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.7 | 0.497 | 15.7, 17.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.23 | 0.698 | -0.136, 2.60 | 0.081 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.273 | 0.451 | -0.611, 1.16 | 0.548 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.192 | 0.645 | -1.46, 1.07 | 0.768 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.039 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.523 | 10.9, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.86 | 0.734 | 0.425, 3.30 | 0.013 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.896 | 0.489 | -0.061, 1.85 | 0.074 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.883 | 0.699 | -2.25, 0.487 | 0.213 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.068 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.5 | 0.915 | 26.7, 30.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.10 | 1.286 | 0.576, 5.62 | 0.018 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.15 | 0.772 | -0.366, 2.66 | 0.145 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.05 | 1.105 | -3.21, 1.12 | 0.349 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.064 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.7 | 1.613 | 24.6, 30.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.41 | 2.265 | -5.85, 3.03 | 0.536 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.789 | 1.146 | -1.46, 3.04 | 0.495 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.976 | 1.640 | -4.19, 2.24 | 0.555 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.9 | 0.843 | 12.2, 15.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.17 | 1.184 | -1.15, 3.49 | 0.326 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.278 | 0.775 | -1.24, 1.80 | 0.722 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.469 | 1.109 | -1.71, 2.64 | 0.675 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.670 | 14.9, 17.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.771 | 0.942 | -1.07, 2.62 | 0.415 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.343 | 0.591 | -0.816, 1.50 | 0.565 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.362 | 0.846 | -2.02, 1.30 | 0.671 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 30.1 | 1.427 | 27.3, 32.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.94 | 2.005 | -1.99, 5.87 | 0.336 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.624 | 1.237 | -1.80, 3.05 | 0.617 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.112 | 1.771 | -3.36, 3.58 | 0.950 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.239 | 12.4, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.385 | 0.336 | -1.04, 0.274 | 0.255 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.160 | 0.353 | -0.532, 0.852 | 0.653 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.173 | 0.504 | -0.814, 1.16 | 0.733 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.576 | 13.7, 15.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.228 | 0.808 | -1.36, 1.81 | 0.779 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.381 | 0.668 | -1.69, 0.928 | 0.571 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.347 | 0.954 | -1.52, 2.22 | 0.718 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.5 | 0.688 | 12.2, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.013 | 0.967 | -1.88, 1.91 | 0.989 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.124 | 0.737 | -1.57, 1.32 | 0.867 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.253 | 1.054 | -1.81, 2.32 | 0.812 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.3 | 1.147 | 26.1, 30.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.241 | 1.611 | -2.92, 3.40 | 0.881 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.510 | 1.263 | -2.99, 1.96 | 0.688 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.597 | 1.805 | -2.94, 4.13 | 0.742 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.1 | 0.684 | 17.8, 20.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.802 | 0.961 | -1.08, 2.69 | 0.406 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.264 | 0.583 | -1.41, 0.879 | 0.653 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.400 | 0.834 | -2.03, 1.24 | 0.634 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.3 | 0.427 | 13.5, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.575 | 0.600 | -0.601, 1.75 | 0.341 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.175 | 0.556 | -0.914, 1.26 | 0.754 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.306 | 0.793 | -1.86, 1.25 | 0.701 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.535 | 11.2, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.90 | 0.751 | -3.37, -0.423 | 0.014 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.519 | 0.502 | -1.50, 0.465 | 0.307 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.942 | 0.718 | -0.466, 2.35 | 0.197 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.062 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.627 | 9.34, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.13 | 0.881 | -2.85, 0.599 | 0.204 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.201 | 0.506 | -0.790, 1.19 | 0.694 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.06 | 0.723 | -2.48, 0.354 | 0.149 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.046 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.636 | 9.24, 11.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.57 | 0.893 | -3.32, 0.180 | 0.082 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.311 | 0.618 | -1.52, 0.900 | 0.617 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.418 | 0.883 | -2.15, 1.31 | 0.639 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.054 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.66 | 0.663 | 7.36, 9.96 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.657 | 0.932 | -2.48, 1.17 | 0.483 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.02 | 0.510 | 0.021, 2.02 | 0.052 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.82 | 0.730 | -3.25, -0.389 | 0.017 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.039 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 1.791 | 26.2, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.35 | 2.515 | -8.28, 1.58 | 0.186 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.01 | 1.303 | -1.54, 3.57 | 0.441 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.34 | 1.865 | -6.99, 0.319 | 0.081 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.050 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.14 (95% CI [2.74, 3.55], t(104) = 15.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.97e-03, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.56], t(104) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -3.27e-03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.71], t(104) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.58])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.02], t(104) = 0.50, p = 0.616; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.84])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.86 (95% CI [16.97, 18.75], t(104) = 39.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.42], t(104) = 0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.53, 0.86], t(104) = -0.55, p = 0.584; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.56], t(104) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.96])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.71 (95% CI [28.04, 31.39], t(104) = 34.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.23, 95% CI [-1.12, 3.58], t(104) = 1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.97], t(104) = 0.45, p = 0.656; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-2.05, 2.55], t(104) = 0.21, p = 0.830; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.94 (95% CI [11.28, 12.61], t(104) = 35.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.27], t(104) = 0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.63])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.27, -8.72e-03], t(104) = -1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.63, -4.34e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.38], t(104) = 1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.69])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.51 (95% CI [16.47, 18.56], t(104) = 32.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-1.45, 1.48], t(104) = 0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = 4.24e-03, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.01, 0.16], t(104) = -1.66, p = 0.096; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53, 95% CI [-0.02, 3.09], t(104) = 1.94, p = 0.053; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-5.31e-03, 0.97])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.89 (95% CI [11.98, 13.80], t(104) = 27.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.84], t(104) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.27], t(104) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.74], t(104) = 1.02, p = 0.309; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.43 (95% CI [9.70, 11.16], t(104) = 27.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-2.01, 0.04], t(104) = -1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.02])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.33], t(104) = -1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.39, 95% CI [0.08, 2.71], t(104) = 2.08, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.63, 95% CI [0.04, 1.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.00 (95% CI [27.72, 34.28], t(104) = 18.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.78, 95% CI [-6.38, 2.82], t(104) = -0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-2.22, 2.42], t(104) = 0.09, p = 0.932; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-4.07, 2.58], t(104) = -0.44, p = 0.660; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.51 (95% CI [20.88, 24.15], t(104) = 27.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.06, 2.53], t(104) = 0.20, p = 0.840; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.52], t(104) = -1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-2.33, 1.14], t(104) = -0.67, p = 0.503; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.41e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.37 (95% CI [23.39, 27.36], t(104) = 25.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-2.22, 3.36], t(104) = 0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.02, 95% CI [-2.79, 0.74], t(104) = -1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.91, 3.15], t(104) = 0.48, p = 0.631; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.26 (95% CI [16.94, 21.58], t(104) = 16.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.88, 95% CI [-0.38, 6.14], t(104) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.87])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.60, 3.06], t(104) = 0.62, p = 0.538; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-4.52, 2.14], t(104) = -0.70, p = 0.484; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.89 (95% CI [9.62, 12.15], t(104) = 16.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.05, 2.50], t(104) = 0.80, p = 0.423; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.51], t(104) = 0.82, p = 0.411; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-2.63, 0.41], t(104) = -1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.11])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.37 (95% CI [13.49, 17.25], t(104) = 16.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-3.26, 2.02], t(104) = -0.46, p = 0.645; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.80], t(104) = 1.13, p = 0.257; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.50])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.53, 95% CI [-4.07, 1.01], t(104) = -1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.94 (95% CI [19.81, 24.07], t(104) = 20.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-2.29, 3.69], t(104) = 0.46, p = 0.648; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.61], t(104) = 0.58, p = 0.563; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.61, 95% CI [-4.49, 1.27], t(104) = -1.10, p = 0.273; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.54e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.26 (95% CI [14.82, 17.69], t(104) = 22.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-1.44, 2.60], t(104) = 0.56, p = 0.576; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.59], t(104) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.65, 2.39], t(104) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.25, 14.26], t(104) = 25.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.18], t(104) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.17], t(104) = -1.65, p = 0.098; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.67, 2.46], t(104) = 1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.80])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.66 (95% CI [15.68, 17.63], t(104) = 33.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.23, 95% CI [-0.14, 2.60], t(104) = 1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.87])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.16], t(104) = 0.61, p = 0.545; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.07], t(104) = -0.30, p = 0.766; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.89 (95% CI [10.86, 12.91], t(104) = 22.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.86, 95% CI [0.43, 3.30], t(104) = 2.54, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [0.13, 1.04])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.85], t(104) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.58])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-2.25, 0.49], t(104) = -1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.54 (95% CI [26.75, 30.34], t(104) = 31.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.10, 95% CI [0.58, 5.62], t(104) = 2.41, p = 0.016; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [0.10, 1.00])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-0.37, 2.66], t(104) = 1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-3.21, 1.12], t(104) = -0.95, p = 0.343; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.74 (95% CI [24.58, 30.90], t(104) = 17.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.41, 95% CI [-5.85, 3.03], t(104) = -0.62, p = 0.534; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.46, 3.04], t(104) = 0.69, p = 0.491; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-4.19, 2.24], t(104) = -0.59, p = 0.552; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.89 (95% CI [12.23, 15.54], t(104) = 16.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-1.15, 3.49], t(104) = 0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.80], t(104) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-1.71, 2.64], t(104) = 0.42, p = 0.672; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.39e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.23 (95% CI [14.91, 17.54], t(104) = 24.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-1.07, 2.62], t(104) = 0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.82, 1.50], t(104) = 0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-2.02, 1.30], t(104) = -0.43, p = 0.668; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.11 (95% CI [27.32, 32.91], t(104) = 21.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.94, 95% CI [-1.99, 5.87], t(104) = 0.97, p = 0.333; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.80, 3.05], t(104) = 0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-3.36, 3.58], t(104) = 0.06, p = 0.950; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.28) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.86 (95% CI [12.39, 13.33], t(104) = 53.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.27], t(104) = -1.14, p = 0.252; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.85], t(104) = 0.45, p = 0.651; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.61])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.16], t(104) = 0.34, p = 0.731; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.83])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.80 (95% CI [13.67, 15.93], t(104) = 25.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.81], t(104) = 0.28, p = 0.778; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.93], t(104) = -0.57, p = 0.569; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.52, 2.22], t(104) = 0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.84e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.51 (95% CI [12.17, 14.86], t(104) = 19.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-1.88, 1.91], t(104) = 0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = 3.36e-03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.57, 1.32], t(104) = -0.17, p = 0.866; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-1.81, 2.32], t(104) = 0.24, p = 0.810; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.31 (95% CI [26.07, 30.56], t(104) = 24.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.92, 3.40], t(104) = 0.15, p = 0.881; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-2.99, 1.96], t(104) = -0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-2.94, 4.13], t(104) = 0.33, p = 0.741; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.11 (95% CI [17.77, 20.46], t(104) = 27.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.69], t(104) = 0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.88], t(104) = -0.45, p = 0.651; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-2.03, 1.24], t(104) = -0.48, p = 0.632; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.34e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.31 (95% CI [13.48, 15.15], t(104) = 33.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.75], t(104) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.26], t(104) = 0.32, p = 0.752; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.51])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.86, 1.25], t(104) = -0.39, p = 0.699; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.26 (95% CI [11.21, 13.31], t(104) = 22.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.90, 95% CI [-3.37, -0.42], t(104) = -2.52, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.05, -0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.47], t(104) = -1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.35], t(104) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.73])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.57 (95% CI [9.34, 11.80], t(104) = 16.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-2.85, 0.60], t(104) = -1.28, p = 0.201; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.19], t(104) = 0.40, p = 0.692; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.48, 0.35], t(104) = -1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.49 (95% CI [9.24, 11.73], t(104) = 16.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.57, 95% CI [-3.32, 0.18], t(104) = -1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.05])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.90], t(104) = -0.50, p = 0.615; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-2.15, 1.31], t(104) = -0.47, p = 0.636; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.66 (95% CI [7.36, 9.96], t(104) = 13.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-2.48, 1.17], t(104) = -0.71, p = 0.481; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [0.02, 2.02], t(104) = 2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [5.53e-03, 0.52])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.82, 95% CI [-3.25, -0.39], t(104) = -2.49, p = 0.013; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.84, -0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.71 (95% CI [26.20, 33.22], t(104) = 16.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.35, 95% CI [-8.28, 1.58], t(104) = -1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.15])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.54, 3.57], t(104) = 0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.34, 95% CI [-6.99, 0.32], t(104) = -1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 354.462 | 362.564 | -174.231 | 348.462 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 358.794 | 374.997 | -173.397 | 346.794 | 1.668 | 3 | 0.644 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 526.165 | 534.267 | -260.083 | 520.165 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 530.507 | 546.710 | -259.254 | 518.507 | 1.658 | 3 | 0.646 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 644.264 | 652.365 | -319.132 | 638.264 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 648.203 | 664.406 | -318.102 | 636.203 | 2.061 | 3 | 0.560 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 443.085 | 451.187 | -218.543 | 437.085 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 443.865 | 460.068 | -215.932 | 431.865 | 5.220 | 3 | 0.156 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 547.991 | 556.092 | -270.995 | 541.991 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 549.547 | 565.749 | -268.773 | 537.547 | 4.444 | 3 | 0.217 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 510.880 | 518.982 | -252.440 | 504.880 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 507.870 | 524.073 | -247.935 | 495.870 | 9.010 | 3 | 0.029 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 483.444 | 491.545 | -238.722 | 477.444 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 483.750 | 499.953 | -235.875 | 471.750 | 5.693 | 3 | 0.128 |
symptom | null | 3 | 768.904 | 777.005 | -381.452 | 762.904 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 773.830 | 790.033 | -380.915 | 761.830 | 1.074 | 3 | 0.783 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 623.548 | 631.649 | -308.774 | 617.548 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 624.242 | 640.445 | -306.121 | 612.242 | 5.306 | 3 | 0.151 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 676.017 | 684.119 | -335.009 | 670.017 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 680.194 | 696.397 | -334.097 | 668.194 | 1.824 | 3 | 0.610 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 720.123 | 728.225 | -357.062 | 714.123 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 723.011 | 739.214 | -355.505 | 711.011 | 3.113 | 3 | 0.375 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 573.163 | 581.265 | -283.582 | 567.163 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 576.804 | 593.007 | -282.402 | 564.804 | 2.359 | 3 | 0.501 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 668.866 | 676.967 | -331.433 | 662.866 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 672.533 | 688.736 | -330.266 | 660.533 | 2.333 | 3 | 0.506 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 695.178 | 703.279 | -344.589 | 689.178 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 699.842 | 716.045 | -343.921 | 687.842 | 1.336 | 3 | 0.721 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 611.266 | 619.368 | -302.633 | 605.266 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 616.134 | 632.336 | -302.067 | 604.134 | 1.133 | 3 | 0.769 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 543.397 | 551.499 | -268.699 | 537.397 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 544.212 | 560.415 | -266.106 | 532.212 | 5.185 | 3 | 0.159 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 522.406 | 530.508 | -258.203 | 516.406 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 524.913 | 541.115 | -256.456 | 512.913 | 3.494 | 3 | 0.322 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 540.608 | 548.709 | -267.304 | 534.608 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 538.139 | 554.342 | -263.070 | 526.139 | 8.468 | 3 | 0.037 |
els | null | 3 | 655.268 | 663.369 | -324.634 | 649.268 | |||
els | random | 6 | 654.046 | 670.249 | -321.023 | 642.046 | 7.222 | 3 | 0.065 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 761.195 | 769.296 | -377.597 | 755.195 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 766.073 | 782.275 | -377.036 | 754.073 | 1.122 | 3 | 0.772 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 638.534 | 646.635 | -316.267 | 632.534 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 642.158 | 658.361 | -315.079 | 630.158 | 2.375 | 3 | 0.498 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 583.662 | 591.764 | -288.831 | 577.662 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 588.763 | 604.966 | -288.382 | 576.763 | 0.899 | 3 | 0.826 |
shs | null | 3 | 749.439 | 757.540 | -371.719 | 743.439 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 753.776 | 769.979 | -370.888 | 741.776 | 1.663 | 3 | 0.645 |
esteem | null | 3 | 390.331 | 398.432 | -192.165 | 384.331 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 393.943 | 410.146 | -190.972 | 381.943 | 2.388 | 3 | 0.496 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 568.422 | 576.523 | -281.211 | 562.422 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 573.873 | 590.076 | -280.936 | 561.873 | 0.549 | 3 | 0.908 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 602.090 | 610.192 | -298.045 | 596.090 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 608.018 | 624.221 | -298.009 | 596.018 | 0.072 | 3 | 0.995 |
mlq | null | 3 | 716.490 | 724.591 | -355.245 | 710.490 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 722.232 | 738.434 | -355.116 | 710.232 | 0.258 | 3 | 0.968 |
empower | null | 3 | 586.859 | 594.961 | -290.430 | 580.859 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 590.798 | 607.000 | -289.399 | 578.798 | 2.062 | 3 | 0.560 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 510.103 | 518.205 | -252.052 | 504.103 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 515.156 | 531.359 | -251.578 | 503.156 | 0.947 | 3 | 0.814 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 544.293 | 552.394 | -269.147 | 538.293 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 543.494 | 559.697 | -265.747 | 531.494 | 6.799 | 3 | 0.079 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 567.334 | 575.436 | -280.667 | 561.334 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 567.551 | 583.754 | -277.776 | 555.551 | 5.783 | 3 | 0.123 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 583.338 | 591.439 | -288.669 | 577.338 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 583.848 | 600.051 | -285.924 | 571.848 | 5.490 | 3 | 0.139 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 578.118 | 586.219 | -286.059 | 572.118 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 576.443 | 592.646 | -282.221 | 564.443 | 7.675 | 3 | 0.053 |
sss | null | 3 | 791.582 | 799.684 | -392.791 | 785.582 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 790.865 | 807.068 | -389.432 | 778.865 | 6.717 | 3 | 0.081 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 35 | 3.14 ± 1.22 | 36 | 3.14 ± 1.22 | 0.989 | 0.004 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 20 | 3.28 ± 1.20 | -0.138 | 19 | 3.48 ± 1.20 | -0.348 | 0.597 | -0.205 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 35 | 17.86 ± 2.69 | 36 | 18.03 ± 2.69 | 0.790 | -0.083 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 20 | 17.52 ± 2.61 | 0.162 | 19 | 18.56 ± 2.60 | -0.257 | 0.219 | -0.502 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 35 | 29.71 ± 5.06 | 36 | 30.94 ± 5.06 | 0.309 | -0.460 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 20 | 30.08 ± 4.47 | -0.137 | 19 | 31.56 ± 4.41 | -0.231 | 0.300 | -0.554 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 35 | 11.94 ± 2.01 | 36 | 12.28 ± 2.01 | 0.484 | -0.320 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 20 | 11.30 ± 1.77 | 0.610 | 19 | 12.12 ± 1.74 | 0.154 | 0.152 | -0.775 |
ras_goal | 1st | 35 | 17.51 ± 3.15 | 36 | 17.53 ± 3.15 | 0.986 | -0.007 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 20 | 16.59 ± 2.84 | 0.507 | 19 | 18.14 ± 2.81 | -0.338 | 0.090 | -0.852 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 35 | 12.89 ± 2.75 | 36 | 13.44 ± 2.75 | 0.394 | -0.422 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 20 | 13.36 ± 2.38 | -0.357 | 19 | 14.51 ± 2.34 | -0.806 | 0.130 | -0.870 |
ras_domination | 1st | 35 | 10.43 ± 2.21 | 36 | 9.44 ± 2.21 | 0.064 | 0.626 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 20 | 9.84 ± 2.11 | 0.373 | 19 | 10.25 ± 2.10 | -0.512 | 0.546 | -0.259 |
symptom | 1st | 35 | 31.00 ± 9.89 | 36 | 29.22 ± 9.89 | 0.451 | 0.467 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 20 | 31.10 ± 8.22 | -0.027 | 19 | 28.58 ± 8.03 | 0.169 | 0.334 | 0.663 |
slof_work | 1st | 35 | 22.51 ± 4.93 | 36 | 22.75 ± 4.93 | 0.841 | -0.118 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 20 | 21.82 ± 4.13 | 0.350 | 19 | 21.46 ± 4.04 | 0.648 | 0.785 | 0.180 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 35 | 25.37 ± 5.99 | 36 | 25.94 ± 5.99 | 0.688 | -0.196 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 20 | 24.35 ± 5.21 | 0.350 | 19 | 25.54 ± 5.12 | 0.139 | 0.473 | -0.407 |
satisfaction | 1st | 35 | 19.26 ± 7.01 | 36 | 22.14 ± 7.01 | 0.087 | -0.741 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 20 | 19.99 ± 6.27 | -0.188 | 19 | 21.68 ± 6.19 | 0.117 | 0.398 | -0.436 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 35 | 10.89 ± 3.82 | 36 | 11.61 ± 3.82 | 0.426 | -0.413 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 20 | 11.33 ± 3.27 | -0.254 | 19 | 10.95 ± 3.21 | 0.378 | 0.713 | 0.218 |
mhc_social | 1st | 35 | 15.37 ± 5.68 | 36 | 14.75 ± 5.68 | 0.646 | 0.211 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 20 | 16.40 ± 5.00 | -0.348 | 19 | 14.24 ± 4.93 | 0.172 | 0.178 | 0.730 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 35 | 21.94 ± 6.43 | 36 | 22.64 ± 6.43 | 0.650 | -0.208 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 20 | 22.54 ± 5.66 | -0.178 | 19 | 21.62 ± 5.58 | 0.304 | 0.612 | 0.274 |
resilisnce | 1st | 35 | 16.26 ± 4.34 | 36 | 16.83 ± 4.34 | 0.577 | -0.245 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 20 | 16.44 ± 3.86 | -0.077 | 19 | 17.38 ± 3.81 | -0.234 | 0.443 | -0.402 |
social_provision | 1st | 35 | 13.26 ± 3.03 | 36 | 14.03 ± 3.03 | 0.287 | -0.419 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 20 | 12.33 ± 2.77 | 0.502 | 19 | 14.00 ± 2.74 | 0.013 | 0.061 | -0.907 |
els_value_living | 1st | 35 | 16.66 ± 2.94 | 36 | 17.89 ± 2.94 | 0.081 | -0.840 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 20 | 16.93 ± 2.57 | -0.186 | 19 | 17.97 ± 2.52 | -0.055 | 0.205 | -0.709 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 35 | 11.89 ± 3.09 | 36 | 13.75 ± 3.09 | 0.013 | -1.172 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 20 | 12.78 ± 2.72 | -0.563 | 19 | 13.76 ± 2.68 | -0.009 | 0.259 | -0.617 |
els | 1st | 35 | 28.54 ± 5.42 | 36 | 31.64 ± 5.42 | 0.018 | -1.239 | ||
els | 2nd | 20 | 29.69 ± 4.65 | -0.459 | 19 | 31.74 ± 4.57 | -0.040 | 0.168 | -0.820 |
social_connect | 1st | 35 | 27.74 ± 9.54 | 36 | 26.33 ± 9.54 | 0.536 | 0.383 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 20 | 28.53 ± 7.93 | -0.214 | 19 | 26.15 ± 7.75 | 0.051 | 0.345 | 0.648 |
shs_agency | 1st | 35 | 13.89 ± 4.99 | 36 | 15.06 ± 4.99 | 0.326 | -0.464 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 20 | 14.16 ± 4.37 | -0.110 | 19 | 15.80 ± 4.30 | -0.296 | 0.240 | -0.650 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 35 | 16.23 ± 3.97 | 36 | 17.00 ± 3.97 | 0.415 | -0.402 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 20 | 16.57 ± 3.44 | -0.179 | 19 | 16.98 ± 3.38 | 0.010 | 0.709 | -0.213 |
shs | 1st | 35 | 30.11 ± 8.45 | 36 | 32.06 ± 8.45 | 0.336 | -0.484 | ||
shs | 2nd | 20 | 30.74 ± 7.29 | -0.156 | 19 | 32.79 ± 7.17 | -0.184 | 0.377 | -0.512 |
esteem | 1st | 35 | 12.86 ± 1.42 | 36 | 12.47 ± 1.42 | 0.255 | 0.316 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 20 | 13.02 ± 1.41 | -0.131 | 19 | 12.81 ± 1.41 | -0.273 | 0.640 | 0.174 |
mlq_search | 1st | 35 | 14.80 ± 3.41 | 36 | 15.03 ± 3.41 | 0.779 | -0.103 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 20 | 14.42 ± 3.17 | 0.172 | 19 | 14.99 ± 3.15 | 0.015 | 0.571 | -0.259 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 35 | 13.51 ± 4.07 | 36 | 13.53 ± 4.07 | 0.989 | -0.006 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 20 | 13.39 ± 3.71 | 0.051 | 19 | 13.66 ± 3.67 | -0.053 | 0.822 | -0.110 |
mlq | 1st | 35 | 28.31 ± 6.79 | 36 | 28.56 ± 6.79 | 0.881 | -0.058 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 20 | 27.80 ± 6.23 | 0.123 | 19 | 28.64 ± 6.17 | -0.021 | 0.674 | -0.201 |
empower | 1st | 35 | 19.11 ± 4.05 | 36 | 19.92 ± 4.05 | 0.406 | -0.425 | ||
empower | 2nd | 20 | 18.85 ± 3.48 | 0.140 | 19 | 19.25 ± 3.42 | 0.352 | 0.717 | -0.213 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 35 | 14.31 ± 2.53 | 36 | 14.89 ± 2.53 | 0.341 | -0.307 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 20 | 14.49 ± 2.43 | -0.094 | 19 | 14.76 ± 2.42 | 0.070 | 0.731 | -0.143 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 35 | 12.26 ± 3.17 | 36 | 10.36 ± 3.17 | 0.014 | 1.160 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 20 | 11.74 ± 2.78 | 0.317 | 19 | 10.78 ± 2.74 | -0.259 | 0.283 | 0.584 |
sss_affective | 1st | 35 | 10.57 ± 3.71 | 36 | 9.44 ± 3.71 | 0.204 | 0.690 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 20 | 10.77 ± 3.16 | -0.123 | 19 | 8.58 ± 3.09 | 0.529 | 0.031 | 1.342 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 35 | 10.49 ± 3.76 | 36 | 8.92 ± 3.76 | 0.083 | 0.778 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 20 | 10.17 ± 3.34 | 0.154 | 19 | 8.19 ± 3.29 | 0.361 | 0.064 | 0.985 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 35 | 8.66 ± 3.92 | 36 | 8.00 ± 3.92 | 0.483 | 0.400 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 20 | 9.68 ± 3.31 | -0.621 | 19 | 7.20 ± 3.24 | 0.486 | 0.020 | 1.507 |
sss | 1st | 35 | 29.71 ± 10.59 | 36 | 26.36 ± 10.59 | 0.186 | 0.800 | ||
sss | 2nd | 20 | 30.73 ± 8.84 | -0.242 | 19 | 24.04 ± 8.64 | 0.554 | 0.019 | 1.596 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(98.43) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.58 to 0.57)
2st
t(105.65) = 0.53, p = 0.597, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.96)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(95.05) = 0.27, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.44)
2st
t(105.69) = 1.24, p = 0.219, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.62 to 2.69)
ras_confidence
1st
t(80.73) = 1.02, p = 0.309, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.16 to 3.62)
2st
t(104.84) = 1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.34 to 4.30)
ras_willingness
1st
t(80.41) = 0.70, p = 0.484, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.28)
2st
t(104.66) = 1.44, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.93)
ras_goal
1st
t(83.20) = 0.02, p = 0.986, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.47 to 1.50)
2st
t(105.69) = 1.71, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (-0.25 to 3.34)
ras_reliance
1st
t(78.57) = 0.86, p = 0.394, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.86)
2st
t(103.24) = 1.53, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.65)
ras_domination
1st
t(91.46) = -1.87, p = 0.064, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.06)
2st
t(105.84) = 0.61, p = 0.546, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.74)
symptom
1st
t(74.89) = -0.76, p = 0.451, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-6.45 to 2.90)
2st
t(97.00) = -0.97, p = 0.334, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-7.69 to 2.64)
slof_work
1st
t(75.53) = 0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.10 to 2.57)
2st
t(98.52) = -0.27, p = 0.785, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.96 to 2.24)
slof_relationship
1st
t(78.82) = 0.40, p = 0.688, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.26 to 3.41)
2st
t(103.48) = 0.72, p = 0.473, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-2.09 to 4.47)
satisfaction
1st
t(82.02) = 1.73, p = 0.087, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-0.43 to 6.19)
2st
t(105.38) = 0.85, p = 0.398, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-2.26 to 5.65)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(77.63) = 0.80, p = 0.426, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.08 to 2.53)
2st
t(102.15) = -0.37, p = 0.713, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-2.44 to 1.68)
mhc_social
1st
t(80.28) = -0.46, p = 0.646, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.30 to 2.06)
2st
t(104.59) = -1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-5.31 to 1.00)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(80.30) = 0.46, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.34 to 3.73)
2st
t(104.60) = -0.51, p = 0.612, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-4.49 to 2.66)
resilisnce
1st
t(81.40) = 0.56, p = 0.577, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.63)
2st
t(105.15) = 0.77, p = 0.443, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.49 to 3.38)
social_provision
1st
t(84.94) = 1.07, p = 0.287, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.66 to 2.20)
2st
t(105.93) = 1.89, p = 0.061, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-0.08 to 3.42)
els_value_living
1st
t(79.29) = 1.76, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.62)
2st
t(103.89) = 1.28, p = 0.205, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.66)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(80.03) = 2.54, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -1.17, 95% CI (0.40 to 3.33)
2st
t(104.43) = 1.14, p = 0.259, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.69)
els
1st
t(77.69) = 2.41, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -1.24, 95% CI (0.54 to 5.66)
2st
t(102.23) = 1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-0.88 to 4.98)
social_connect
1st
t(74.92) = -0.62, p = 0.536, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-5.92 to 3.10)
2st
t(97.08) = -0.95, p = 0.345, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-7.37 to 2.60)
shs_agency
1st
t(79.62) = 0.99, p = 0.326, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.19 to 3.53)
2st
t(104.14) = 1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.11 to 4.39)
shs_pathway
1st
t(78.64) = 0.82, p = 0.415, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.10 to 2.65)
2st
t(103.30) = 0.37, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.76 to 2.58)
shs
1st
t(78.26) = 0.97, p = 0.336, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.05 to 5.93)
2st
t(102.91) = 0.89, p = 0.377, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-2.54 to 6.65)
esteem
1st
t(101.28) = -1.14, p = 0.255, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.28)
2st
t(105.71) = -0.47, p = 0.640, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.68)
mlq_search
1st
t(87.52) = 0.28, p = 0.779, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.38 to 1.83)
2st
t(106.00) = 0.57, p = 0.571, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.58)
mlq_presence
1st
t(84.25) = 0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.91 to 1.94)
2st
t(105.86) = 0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.08 to 2.61)
mlq
1st
t(85.28) = 0.15, p = 0.881, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.96 to 3.45)
2st
t(105.95) = 0.42, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-3.10 to 4.77)
empower
1st
t(77.89) = 0.83, p = 0.406, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-1.11 to 2.72)
2st
t(102.49) = 0.36, p = 0.717, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.79 to 2.60)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(93.42) = 0.96, p = 0.341, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.77)
2st
t(105.75) = 0.35, p = 0.731, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.27 to 1.81)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(80.12) = -2.52, p = 0.014, Cohen d = 1.16, 95% CI (-3.39 to -0.40)
2st
t(104.49) = -1.08, p = 0.283, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.71 to 0.80)
sss_affective
1st
t(76.85) = -1.28, p = 0.204, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-2.88 to 0.63)
2st
t(101.02) = -2.19, p = 0.031, Cohen d = 1.34, 95% CI (-4.18 to -0.21)
sss_behavior
1st
t(81.09) = -1.76, p = 0.083, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-3.35 to 0.21)
2st
t(105.01) = -1.87, p = 0.064, Cohen d = 0.99, 95% CI (-4.09 to 0.12)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(76.05) = -0.71, p = 0.483, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-2.51 to 1.20)
2st
t(99.60) = -2.36, p = 0.020, Cohen d = 1.51, 95% CI (-4.56 to -0.40)
sss
1st
t(75.24) = -1.33, p = 0.186, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-8.36 to 1.66)
2st
t(97.85) = -2.39, p = 0.019, Cohen d = 1.60, 95% CI (-12.25 to -1.13)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(52.74) = 1.16, p = 0.505, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.94)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(50.44) = 0.84, p = 0.804, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.78)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(42.62) = 0.73, p = 0.936, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.08 to 2.32)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(42.47) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.50)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(43.85) = 1.08, p = 0.574, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.76)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(41.57) = 2.54, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.92)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(48.28) = 1.67, p = 0.203, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.77)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(39.79) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.11 to 1.82)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(40.10) = -2.03, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-2.58 to -0.01)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(41.69) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.27 to 1.46)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(43.26) = -0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.92 to 2.01)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(41.11) = -1.19, p = 0.482, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.46)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(42.40) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-2.39 to 1.37)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(42.41) = -0.96, p = 0.680, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.15 to 1.11)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(42.96) = 0.74, p = 0.923, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.04)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(44.74) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.18 to 1.13)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(41.92) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.02)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(42.28) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.00 to 1.03)
els
1st vs 2st
t(41.14) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.70)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(39.81) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.57 to 2.19)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(42.08) = 0.94, p = 0.708, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.36)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(41.60) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.25 to 1.21)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(41.41) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.83 to 3.30)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(55.04) = 0.92, p = 0.724, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.06)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(46.10) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.35)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(44.39) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.40 to 1.66)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(44.92) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.53 to 2.70)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(41.24) = -1.11, p = 0.548, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.87 to 0.55)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(49.43) = -0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.02)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(42.32) = 0.82, p = 0.833, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.46)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(40.73) = -1.66, p = 0.208, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.19)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(42.80) = -1.15, p = 0.515, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.01 to 0.55)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(40.35) = -1.52, p = 0.270, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.86 to 0.26)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(39.96) = -1.73, p = 0.181, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-5.03 to 0.38)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(51.11) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.72)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(49.06) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.90)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(42.07) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.30 to 2.03)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(41.93) = -1.98, p = 0.109, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.01)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(43.17) = -1.66, p = 0.210, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.20)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(41.12) = 1.15, p = 0.511, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.30)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(47.13) = -1.24, p = 0.441, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.36)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(39.53) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.30 to 2.50)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(39.80) = -1.12, p = 0.537, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.56)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(41.23) = -1.13, p = 0.528, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.85 to 0.80)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(42.64) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.68 to 3.14)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(40.71) = 0.82, p = 0.836, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.54)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(41.87) = 1.13, p = 0.531, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.86)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(41.88) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.49 to 2.67)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(42.37) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.64)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(43.97) = -1.64, p = 0.215, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.21)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(41.44) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.19)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(41.76) = 1.83, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.89)
els
1st vs 2st
t(40.74) = 1.48, p = 0.293, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.71)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(39.54) = 0.69, p = 0.992, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.53 to 3.11)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(41.58) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.85)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(41.15) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.54)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(40.99) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.88 to 3.13)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(53.16) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.87)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(45.18) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.97)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(43.66) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.37)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(44.13) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.07 to 2.05)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(40.83) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.45 to 0.92)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(48.16) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.30)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(41.80) = -1.03, p = 0.619, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.50)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(40.37) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.23)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(42.23) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.94)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(40.02) = 2.00, p = 0.105, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.05)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(39.67) = 0.78, p = 0.884, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.63 to 3.65)